In a remarkable new post-trial motion, Samsung has laid out its strategy to get the $1.05 billion verdict against it kicked out. The boldest maneuver? A straightforward attack on the patent-owning jury foreman.

The Korean company hinted at this tactic in an earlier, redacted brief, but now it's been laid out in full, with more than a dozen exhibits attached showcasing Hogan's allegedly offending public statements. The company's lawyers have clearly had time now to comb through the multiple interviews foreman Velvin Hogan has offered since the trial in order to find the juiciest tidbits.

His legal misstatements have been picked apart by Samsung lawyers, who noted he said design patents are based on "look and feel," and that prior art must be "interchangeable" in order to invalidate a patent. "These incorrect and extraneous legal standards had no place in the jury room," wrote Samsung in its brief.

More significantly, the brief notes that Hogan disclosed being involved in only one lawsuit—failing to mention that he was sued by his former employer Seagate Technology, a company owned in part by Samsung. That lawsuit, which demanded Hogan pay back certain house payments that Seagate had assisted him with, ultimately caused Hogan and his wife to file for bankruptcy. "Mr. Hogan’s failure to disclose the Seagate suit raises issues of bias that Samsung should have been allowed to explore in questioning and that would have triggered a motion to strike for cause or a peremptory strike," write Samsung lawyers.

Samsung also suggests that Hogan didn't disclose how pro-patent he was when asked in court whether he had "strong feelings" about the US patent system. The new motion argues that Hogan's silence didn't sync up with his later statements to The Verge that "except for my family, it [jury service] was the high point of my career... you might even say my life," and that he wanted to be satisfied "that this trial was fair, and protected copyrights and intellectual property rights, no matter who they belonged to."

The company actually suggests that Hogan come back for an additional hearing with all the other jurors, because his "conduct during voir dire [jury selection] and jury deliberations must be fully examined." The only solution is a new trial, Samsung argues.

When asked yesterday about Samsung's new accusations of dishonesty, Hogan claimed he'd disclosed everything he should have. He told a Bloomberg reporter that the court's instructions required him to disclose litigation in the last 10 years, and he was sued by Seagate back in 1993. “Had I been asked an open-ended question with no time constraint, of course I would’ve disclosed that,” said Hogan, adding that “I answered every question the judge asked me... [Samsung] had every opportunity to question me."

In addition to the arguments about Hogan, Samsung has a lot of other post-trial arguments which seem pretty run-of-the-mill and probably have little chance of succeeding. For instance, Samsung argues that no reasonable jury could have found Apple's patents valid; but if the judge had seen a problem that big with Apple's case, she could have stopped the trial altogether.

Perhaps more realistically, Samsung also asks to sharply reduce the $1.05 billion in damages it has been slapped with. For example, Samsung argues the damages for design patent infringement should be dropped by more than 95%, since "just 5% of respondents to a J.D. Power study identify visual appeal as why they purchased a phone." Even on this front, though, Samsung's arguments are similar to ones already presented during trial.

362 Reader Comments

Perhaps more realistically, Samsung also asks to sharply reduce the $1.05 billion in damages they've been slapped with. For example, they argue the damages for design patent infringement should be dropped by more than 95%, since "just 5% of respondents to a J.D. Power study identify visual appeal as why they purchased a phone."

OK, look. I hate Apple, their patents, and their willingness to use patents on bullshit things to sue people out of competition. But Samsung's argument is complete horseshit.

They found some study somewhere about how many people buy a phone based on visual appeal, and that means they shouldn't have to pay that much money? Is that really the best argument Samsung's lawyers can cough up for lowering the damages here?

More significantly, the brief notes that Hogan disclosed being involved in only one lawsuit--failing to mention that he was sued by his former employer Seagate Technology, a company owned in part by Samsung. That lawsuit, which demanded Hogan pay back certain house payments that Seagate had assisted him with, ultimately caused Hogan and his wife to file for bankruptcy. "Mr. Hogan’s failure to disclose the Seagate suit raises issues of bias that Samsung should have been allowed to explore in questioning and that would have triggered a motion to strike for cause or a peremptory strike," write Samsung lawyers.

Perhaps more realistically, Samsung also asks to sharply reduce the $1.05 billion in damages they've been slapped with. For example, they argue the damages for design patent infringement should be dropped by more than 95%, since "just 5% of respondents to a J.D. Power study identify visual appeal as why they purchased a phone."

OK, look. I hate Apple, their patents, and their willingness to use patents on bullshit things to sue people out of competition. But Samsung's argument is complete horseshit.

They found some study somewhere about how many people buy a phone based on visual appeal, and that means they shouldn't have to pay that much money? Is that really the best argument Samsung's lawyers can cough up for lowering the damages here?

No wonder those imbeciles lost.

Not that I agree with the reasoning, but the 1 billion in damages for bouncy scrolling and rectangular shape (and other near meaningless 'infractions') is a joke.

More significantly, the brief notes that Hogan disclosed being involved in only one lawsuit--failing to mention that he was sued by his former employer Seagate Technology, a company owned in part by Samsung.

Did Samsung have shares in Seagate when Hogan was sued by Seagate or do the Samsung lawyers argue that the guy would carry a grudge over years and decades so strong that even minority shareholders for Seagate are his enemies?

I don't know how their lawyers work, but I'm not sure that it is effective to go from grand statement to unrelated petty innuendo in the same motion. It's as if they were trying to throw everything and the kitchen sink at the trial.

More significantly, the brief notes that Hogan disclosed being involved in only one lawsuit--failing to mention that he was sued by his former employer Seagate Technology, a company owned in part by Samsung. That lawsuit, which demanded Hogan pay back certain house payments that Seagate had assisted him with, ultimately caused Hogan and his wife to file for bankruptcy. "Mr. Hogan’s failure to disclose the Seagate suit raises issues of bias that Samsung should have been allowed to explore in questioning and that would have triggered a motion to strike for cause or a peremptory strike," write Samsung lawyers.

Uh, yeah. That is a fucking big omission.

Uh, yeah? Why? When was that lawsuit? When did Samsung get their 9.something% stake in Seagate? Before 1993? Or why would it matter otherwise?

Not that I agree with the reasoning, but the 1 billion in damages for bouncy scrolling and rectangular shape (and other near meaningless 'infractions') is a joke.

When you put together for internal purposes a list of 132 pages of "meaningless infractions" you want to copy even closer , they're not as meaningless, especially to a jury.

Rectangular shape with rounded corners is not an Apple patent. This description, with other elements, was however part of their trade mark for the iPhone. Samsung was found guilty of copying the entire trade mark, rather than just having a few similar elements.

More significantly, the brief notes that Hogan disclosed being involved in only one lawsuit--failing to mention that he was sued by his former employer Seagate Technology, a company owned in part by Samsung. That lawsuit, which demanded Hogan pay back certain house payments that Seagate had assisted him with, ultimately caused Hogan and his wife to file for bankruptcy. "Mr. Hogan’s failure to disclose the Seagate suit raises issues of bias that Samsung should have been allowed to explore in questioning and that would have triggered a motion to strike for cause or a peremptory strike," write Samsung lawyers.

Uh, yeah. That is a fucking big omission.

Uh, yeah? Why? When was that lawsuit? When did Samsung get their 9.something% stake in Seagate? Before 1993? Or why would it matter otherwise?

This sounded really bad until it became clear that was 19 years ago. I sure as hell couldn't remember who the stakeholders were in a company I worked at 19 years ago, and I'd have to have one pretty huge grudge to care for that long. I doubt I know all the stakeholders at the company I am a part of now. Until this article I had no idea that Samsung owned any of Seagate, and I actually follow the HDD industry(and when did they acquire that, as others have pointed out? Pretty sure it was when Seagate bought their drive division just a couple years ago).

This seems like a desperate reach. Also, regardless of what he says, its virtually impossible to invalidate a verdict based on anything the jury does afterwards or are alleged to have done during the process once the case is decided. Or at least that's what I've read here and a few other places..

Not that I agree with the reasoning, but the 1 billion in damages for bouncy scrolling and rectangular shape (and other near meaningless 'infractions') is a joke.

When you put together for internal purposes a list of 132 pages of "meaningless infractions" you want to copy even closer , they're not as meaningless, especially to a jury.

Rectangular shape with rounded corners is not an Apple patent. This description, with other elements, was however part of their trade mark for the iPhone. Samsung was found guilty of copying the entire trade mark, rather than just having a few similar elements.

The entire trade mark? I thought it was about "trade dress" or something along that line? If so, it is all about rectangular shapes and rounded corners... Either way this case is still about Apple abusing the courts to gain profit. Makes me sick.

You have to feel a little bad for the juror, who, 1) actually enjoyed jury duty and 2) thought he was doing good. However, it seems more and more like his actions were inappropriate for a juror.

No, I don't have to feel bad for him. Subversion of the judicial process is not something I'm going to forgive or excuse because he had fun and thought he was doing good. I'm sure a lot of people who take "extra-legal" measures think they're doing good. That doesn't make them right.

More significantly, the brief notes that Hogan disclosed being involved in only one lawsuit--failing to mention that he was sued by his former employer Seagate Technology, a company owned in part by Samsung. That lawsuit, which demanded Hogan pay back certain house payments that Seagate had assisted him with, ultimately caused Hogan and his wife to file for bankruptcy. "Mr. Hogan’s failure to disclose the Seagate suit raises issues of bias that Samsung should have been allowed to explore in questioning and that would have triggered a motion to strike for cause or a peremptory strike," write Samsung lawyers.

Uh, yeah. That is a fucking big omission.

Uh, yeah? Why? When was that lawsuit? When did Samsung get their 9.something% stake in Seagate? Before 1993? Or why would it matter otherwise?

This sounded really bad until it became clear that was 19 years ago. I sure as hell couldn't remember who the stakeholders were in a company I worked at 19 years ago, and I'd have to have one pretty huge grudge to care for that long. I doubt I know all the stakeholders at the company I am a part of now. Until this article I had no idea that Samsung owned any of Seagate, and I actually follow the HDD industry(and when did they acquire that, as others have pointed out? Pretty sure it was when Seagate bought their drive division just a couple years ago).

This seems like a desperate reach. Also, regardless of what he says, its virtually impossible to invalidate a verdict based on anything the jury does afterwards or are alleged to have done during the process once the case is decided. Or at least that's what I've read here and a few other places..

The lawsuit by Seagate forced Hogan into bankruptcy, which would have hung over him for at least 10 years. That would definitely be cause for some long term anger issues. And it's not a "desperate reach". Lying during voir dire is an automatic presumption of bias, which is a strong argument for tossing the verdict out.

As for the basis of "jury thinking", they made their thoughts public through a variety of interviews after the verdict. That's fair game for the lawyers. And when multiple jurors concede that critical steps were overlooked, and the foreman admits that he used his own, invalid, interpretation of patent law instead of the judge's instructions, that is also a prime reason for a retrial.

More significantly, the brief notes that Hogan disclosed being involved in only one lawsuit--failing to mention that he was sued by his former employer Seagate Technology, a company owned in part by Samsung. That lawsuit, which demanded Hogan pay back certain house payments that Seagate had assisted him with, ultimately caused Hogan and his wife to file for bankruptcy. "Mr. Hogan’s failure to disclose the Seagate suit raises issues of bias that Samsung should have been allowed to explore in questioning and that would have triggered a motion to strike for cause or a peremptory strike," write Samsung lawyers.

Uh, yeah. That is a fucking big omission.

Uh, yeah? Why? When was that lawsuit? When did Samsung get their 9.something% stake in Seagate? Before 1993? Or why would it matter otherwise?

Because the judge asked him to reveal ALL lawsuits. So that is a fucking big omission when it involves a major patent holding company screwing him over.

You don't think it is possible the guy might have had an issue with Seagate, and samsung by proxy?Here, groklaw goes into further depth:

This is obviously jury intimidation. Samsung are desperately latching in to the fact that he has some tenuous link to Samsung. Where does he live? San Jose? The biggest city in Silicon Valley? Who doesn't have some link to the worlds biggest producer of silicon-based products?

In South Korea, Samsung have been linked to bribery and corruption on a huge scale.. Now they're bringing to the States.

To those questioning whether he could hold a grudge for 19 years, remember that bankruptcy stays on your credit report for 10 years. After that 10 years, you essentially have a massive gap in your credit report, where lenders wonder why you don't have many loans for the past 10 years. Arguably, the guy could still be feeling the effects 15 years after filing, especially when you consider the high interest rates he's had to pay because of it. He also probably went through at least a year or two of debt collection/lawsuit hell before it got to bankruptcy. It's an extremely traumatic experience. 15+ years of financial torment is plenty of time to sow the seeds of a grudge that will last a lifetime.

The case was about trade dress and not about trademark. It wasn't about one individual patent, but a combination of design and utility patents that formed Apple's trade dress. Without copying Apple's trade dress, Samsung wouldn't have earned the market share it did.

More significantly, the brief notes that Hogan disclosed being involved in only one lawsuit--failing to mention that he was sued by his former employer Seagate Technology, a company owned in part by Samsung. That lawsuit, which demanded Hogan pay back certain house payments that Seagate had assisted him with, ultimately caused Hogan and his wife to file for bankruptcy. "Mr. Hogan’s failure to disclose the Seagate suit raises issues of bias that Samsung should have been allowed to explore in questioning and that would have triggered a motion to strike for cause or a peremptory strike," write Samsung lawyers.

Uh, yeah. That is a fucking big omission.

Uh, yeah? Why? When was that lawsuit? When did Samsung get their 9.something% stake in Seagate? Before 1993? Or why would it matter otherwise?

This sounded really bad until it became clear that was 19 years ago. I sure as hell couldn't remember who the stakeholders were in a company I worked at 19 years ago, and I'd have to have one pretty huge grudge to care for that long. I doubt I know all the stakeholders at the company I am a part of now. Until this article I had no idea that Samsung owned any of Seagate, and I actually follow the HDD industry(and when did they acquire that, as others have pointed out? Pretty sure it was when Seagate bought their drive division just a couple years ago).

This seems like a desperate reach. Also, regardless of what he says, its virtually impossible to invalidate a verdict based on anything the jury does afterwards or are alleged to have done during the process once the case is decided. Or at least that's what I've read here and a few other places..

The lawsuit by Seagate forced Hogan into bankruptcy, which would have hung over him for at least 10 years. That would definitely be cause for some long term anger issues. And it's not a "desperate reach". Lying during voir dire is an automatic presumption of bias, which is a strong argument for tossing the verdict out.

As for the basis of "jury thinking", they made their thoughts public through a variety of interviews after the verdict. That's fair game for the lawyers. And when multiple jurors concede that critical steps were overlooked, and the foreman admits that he used his own, invalid, interpretation of patent law instead of the judge's instructions, that is also a prime reason for a retrial.

So, DID Samsung own parts of Seagate in 1993?

Or are you saying that the foreman is just One Very Angry Man who decided that anyone ever in contact or a business relationship with Seagate deserves his wrath?

Seriously. Even subtracting 10 years, it’s 9 years in the past. And, as noone demonstrated otherwise and Wikipedia links Samsung and Seagate only in December 2011, I’m assuming the foreman would have to be really mentally unstable to fucking blame Samsung for the shit that happened in 1993.

From what I’ve read, the foreman used his experience with a patent application and granting process, not his layman interpretation of patent law. I’d actually expect any question about actual patent law would be answered by the judge and lawyers—and if they weren’t, well, tough shit. If Samsung went into a billion dollar lawsuit that unprepared, they don’t deserve a retrial either.

Of all the fuckups Samsung did during the trial people are harping on about the foreman and his 19 year old bancrupcy that has nothing to do with Samsung in the first place? It’s like the mere mentioning of Apple turns people into retards.

Samsung's lawyers could've refused the guy during the horse trading that goes on in jury selection. In a way, they're sort of pointing the finger at themselves and trying to say that their blunder is cause for throwing the thing out.

Not that I agree with the reasoning, but the 1 billion in damages for bouncy scrolling and rectangular shape (and other near meaningless 'infractions') is a joke.

When you put together for internal purposes a list of 132 pages of "meaningless infractions" you want to copy even closer , they're not as meaningless, especially to a jury.

Rectangular shape with rounded corners is not an Apple patent. This description, with other elements, was however part of their trade mark for the iPhone. Samsung was found guilty of copying the entire trade mark, rather than just having a few similar elements.

You write as if patent law was morally based. The reality of the situation is that patent law is a weapon used to decrease competition. And in that sense, 1 billion is a lot for trade dress.

Samsung's lawyers could've refused the guy during the horse trading that goes on in jury selection. In a way, they're sort of pointing the finger at themselves and trying to say that their blunder is cause for throwing the thing out.

Samsung's lawyers could've refused the guy during the horse trading that goes on in jury selection. In a way, they're sort of pointing the finger at themselves and trying to say that their blunder is cause for throwing the thing out.

Not when they didn't have complete information.

You do know, thought, that a big ass lawyer firm that you would hire for a billion dollar trial has people on payroll to do research, right? I mean, that’s not sounding like a completely alien concept to you, yes? And you do know that laywers have access to court records? With things like a database that they can type in, dunno, say a name of a person that was subject of a trial?

You have to feel a little bad for the juror, who, 1) actually enjoyed jury duty and 2) thought he was doing good. However, it seems more and more like his actions were inappropriate for a juror.

No, I don't have to feel bad for him. Subversion of the judicial process is not something I'm going to forgive or excuse because he had fun and thought he was doing good. I'm sure a lot of people who take "extra-legal" measures think they're doing good. That doesn't make them right.

Yep.. the guy had a chip in his shoulder and was talking as if he finally was given the chance to "make justice" and be a hero. If this jury decision can't be thrown out, then I don't know what can.

I didn't realise Apple fans had so much time on their hands. Surely they should be out helping their company by buying as many dock adapters and $30 cables as they can and telling everyone how cool they are.

Irrelevant, actually. He lied to a judge. Again, read the groklaw article.

This isn't groklaw. Maybe YOU should read the article HERE. He was asked about lawsuits in the past 10 years. 1993 was 19 years ago.

Samsung is a desperately poor loser grasping at straws.

I hate to say it but this whole situation truly bothers me. We have only had software patents for ~20 years and people act as if it was a national institution. The verdict on this case is 1 BILLION dollars, more than most companies will EVER make- and so many people think this is justified. Imagine for a moment, if you will, if this patent system was present when automobiles were becoming mainstream. Cars had very little differentiation, and are easily more difficult to tell apart than a Samsung and an iPhone. If apple were ford at the turn of the 20th century we would never have Chevy or Chrysler.Competition is a normal and healthy part of a free market. Rather then compete, apple prefers to manipulate a broken system.You can't own an idea.

Samsung's lawyers could've refused the guy during the horse trading that goes on in jury selection. In a way, they're sort of pointing the finger at themselves and trying to say that their blunder is cause for throwing the thing out.

Not when they didn't have complete information.

Couldn't they have asked for a mistrial, or at least to have him excused? I'd think with the stakes as high as they were, they would've done their homework on these folks. It wouldn't have taken much digging to find that lawsuit.

How about the fact that the jury didn't rule against Apple on Samsungs patents?FRAND encumbered or not, Apple didn't have the rights to use them. The fact that this is ignored by the jury makes this whole case a joke.